A decree for permanent injunction is an executable decree, and the decree holder must file an execution petition to seek police aid or protection.

Executio est finis et fructus legis" – An execution is the end and the fruit of law. But this Civil Revision Petition seeks to examine a larger question as to whether a decree for permanent injunction is a mere enforceable decree and not an executable decree. It also raises the consequential question as to whether a person, who secured a decree for permanent injunction, is entitled to seek police protection by taking recourse to Section 151 CPC without even filing any execution petition as provided under Order XXI, Rule 32 CPC.

2. Heard Mr. S.A. Ajmal Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Meenakshi Sundaram, learned counsel for the respondents.

3. The respondents herein filed a suit in O.S.No.92 of 2005 against the petitioner herein seeking a decree of permanent injunction restraining him from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. After trial, the Principal Sub Court, Tenkasi, decreed the suit by a judgment dated 29.6.2007. The petitioner herein did not prefer any appeal and allowed the decree to attain finality.

4. Thereafter, the respondents herein straight away filed an Execution Application in E.A.No.3 of 2008 on the file of the Court which passed the decree, contending that in violation of decree of injunction, the petitioner threatened them, with his henchmen and that a FIR was also filed and that a legal notice issued by them was also of no avail. The said application was filed under Section 151 CPC, seeking a direction to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Alangulam, to render police aid for the implementation of the decree of permanent injunction.

5. Though the petitioner filed a counter admitting the fact that the decree had attained finality, he also contended that he did not interfere with their possession and enjoyment of the property. The Court below, after enquiry, passed an order directing the police to grant protection to the respondents in the event of any interference by the petitioner with their possession of the suit property. It is against the said order that the petitioner has come up with the present Civil Revision Petition.

6. The main contention of the petitioner is that without invoking the provisions of Order XXI, Rule 32 CPC, for executing the decree of permanent injunction, the respondents are not entitled to file an application straight-away under Section 151 CPC, seeking police protection. But the learned counsel for the respondents contends that a decree of permanent injunction is not actually an executable decree in the strict sense of the term and that it is only an enforceable decree. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the respondents, the Court which passed the decree is also entitled to see to it that the fruits of the decree re enjoyed by the decree-holder.

7. I have carefully considered the rival submissions.

8. There cannot be a dispute about the fact that a Court which passed a decree would have all the powers to do whatever is necessary and proper to see to it that the decree-holder enjoys the fruits of such a decree. The power to execute, enforce or implement a decree is a necessary corollary of the power to grant a decree. In Savitri Vs. Govind Singh Rawat ((1985) 4 SCC 337: AIR 1986 SC 984), it has been held as follows:

"Every Court must be deemed to possess by necessary intendment, all such powers as are necessary to make its orders effective. This principle is embodied in the maxim `ubi aliquid conceditur, conceditur et id sine quo res ipsa esse non potest (where anything is con-ceded, there is conceded also anything without which the thing itself cannot exist). (Vide Earl Jowitts Dictionary of English Law, 1959 Edn., p. 1797.) Whenever anything is required to be done by law and it is found impossible to do that thing unless something not authorised in express terms be also done then that some-thing else will be supplied by necessary intendment."

In State of Karnataka Vs. Vishwabharath, House